The Normality of Crime:
Durkheim and Erikson
John Hamlin
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
UMD
The idea that crime might be a normal part of society seems untenable to
many people. Yet it is the major tenant of the functional theory of crime. The
idea found in Durkheim that the amount of deviance remains relatively stable
over time, refers to a number of different but interrelated aspects of his theory
of society. To begin with a good deal of what Durkheim says in reference to
deviance is found in, The Rules of Sociological Method. One of his concerns in
this work, as in his work Suicide, is to demonstrate that sociology has a unique
object of study, moral life. As he states in Suicide, there can be no sociology
without societies and societies cannot exist if there are only individuals. There
is a moral reality greater than the individual. With societies and moral order
represented by the conscious collective, there exists social facts which
themselves are external to the individual. These social facts hold a moral
authority over individuals in society and help keep social order stable.
According to Durkheim deviance is not a pathological aberration in the
character structure of particular individuals, but rather, it is ‘an integral part of
all healthy societies.’ Because crime is found in all healthy societies it must be
performing some necessary, positive function or else it would disappear as
societies progress and become more complex and civilized. Crime is normal
because a society without crime would be impossible. Behaviors considered
unacceptable have increased, as society progresses not decreases.
1
If a society is operating as its normal healthy self the rate of deviance
should change very little. If, on the other hand, the rates drop or increase
significantly this would be an abnormal condition and an indication of sickness
in the organism. The change can be brought on by basically three different
conditions. The first is the forced division of labor. In advanced industrial
societies with a highly developed complex division of labor, the moral authority
that holds individuals together is the highly independent nature of extremely
differentiated social positions, something Durkheim termed organic solidarity.
In a society in which social and occupational positions change rapidly or in
which people are forced into positions below or above their talents, there is a
forced division of labor. Moral authority begins to breakdown and deviance
rates change. As second source of change in deviance rates would accompany
the development of anomie. When the individual and the collective conscious
are no longer in tune with one anther the individual is lost as the moral
authority fails to regulate the desires and needs of the person. A third source
of increased deviation results when the cult of the individual runs amuck. The
cult of the individual refers not to particular individuals but rather to the belief
that human beings in the abstract are individuals. When individuals begin to
take this ideology too seriously and begin to act more and more independently,
holding little regard for the solidarity of the moral order, deviance rates will
again fluctuate away from the normal.
All of this aside, if a given society is operating in its normal mode the rate
of deviance will remain relatively stable. This will be true regardless of the
individuals who made up the rates or their motives for committing deviant acts.
2
The individual committing a deviant act may indeed be pathological; the rate
however, is not.
Perhaps Durkheim’s clearest example is in his study of suicide. Every
society is inclined to have a particular suicide rate that remains constant as long
as the structure of each society remains the same. Any individual within society
showing inclinations toward suicide is reflecting the collective inclination
toward suicide, which exists above and beyond the individual. The structure of
society itself determines the collective inclination. For example, in a society
incapable of storing a surplus, where every individual is needed in production
of subsistence, it is likely there will be an inclination toward altruistic suicide.
Individuals inclined to suicide are likely to commit suicide for the sake of
society.
There have been a number of studies concerned with suicide that follow
in Durkheim’s footsteps. Most of these are concerned with the relationship
between the breakdown in constraint exerted over individuals. For example
Gibbs and Martin look at the degree of status integration in relation to suicide
rates. The more integrated the statuses the lower the rates of suicide.
Perhaps the most well known study that attempts to show the relative
stability of deviance over time is Kai Erikson’s, Wayward Puritans. Erikson
closely scrutinizes the Massachusetts Bay Colony of the 17th century to test
three hypothesis concerning deviance. Two of those are worth talking about in
some detail. The first because it relates to a basic function deviance serves fro
all healthy societies. This helps to explain why deviance is always present in
society. The second hypothesis deals more directly with the contention that
deviance remains fairly constant over time.
3
Erikson states that every community has its own particular set of moral
boundaries and that each community also has its own particular styles of
deviance. The moral boundaries give each group a distinct identity, which gives
its members a sense of belonging, and identity. Deviant behavior functions to
illuminate those moral boundaries. In day-to-day living we often lose sight of
those features of our community, which gives it its own special identity. The
boundaries appear in a haze of uncertainty, or perhaps transform in the process
of maturation. Deviance acts as a fine lens to bring the boundaries back into
focus and clarify the will of the collective conscience.
Erickson first approached this idea in an article published in 1959
entitled, The Functions of Deviance in Groups (Dentler and Erikson). The
authors attempt to apply three propositions derived from the works of
Durkheim. The first proposition states “groups tend to induce, sustain, and
permit deviant behavior” (1959:90).
Groups while setting up their normative
patterns allocate positions within the group to be filled by people displaying
behavior contrary to the acceptable norms. Thus, when the range of behavior
was being established certain behavior was defined as deviant. The behavior
then becomes permitted within the group in the same sense that behavior
exhibited by leaders is induced, sustained and permitted. The range of
behavior allowed by the group is essential to group formation. What this
proposition implies is a built-in division of labor, certain people will fill certain
roles and perform particular functions, the higher the position the more one
will mirror the norms, the lower the positing the more likely these persons will
exhibit deviant norms. As Dentler and Erikson argue (1959:10):
4
Thus the rankings that take place on a scale of social preference serve to
identify the activities that members are expected to carry out; each
general rank represents or contains an equivalent role which defines that
member’s special relationship to the group and its norms. To the extent
that a group ranks its members preferentially, it distributes functions
differentially.
The second proposition states that, “deviant behavior functions in
enduring groups to help maintain group equilibrium” (1959:11). Essential to
the group is the comparing and contrasting of behavior.
In order for certain forms of behavior to be rewarded for conformity to
group norms, deviant norms must be present to give meaning to the reward
system (1959:12). Both highly conforming and deviant behavior are necessary
in maintaining the mean of the total range of behavior found in any group. The
elimination of either one will result in a shift of threat mean producing different
normative patterns (1959:12). Therefore, deviance is an integral part of
maintaining group boundaries.
“Groups will resist any trend toward alienation of a member whose
behavior is deviant” (1959:14), is the third and final proposition Dentler and
Erikson propose. Unless the deviant presents a real threat to group solidarity,
the deviant will be retained and dealt with in the group. “A group is
distinguished in part by the norms it creates for handling deviance and by the
forms of deviance it is able to absorb and contain” (1959:13). These norms for
handling deviance become a key factor in establishing “jurisdiction over
behavior,” promoting “group identity and distinctiveness,” and pinpoints t “the
range of behavior” the group encompasses (1959:20):
… deviant members are important targets toward which group concerns
become focused. Not only do they symbolize the group’s activities, but
also they help give other members a sense of group size, its range and
extent, by marking where the group begins and ends in space. In
5
general, the deviant seems to help give the group structure a visible
“shape.” The deviant is someone about whom something should be
done, and the group, in expressing this concern, is able to reaffirm its
essential cohesion and indicate what the group is and what it can do.
Coser recognizes the same functions of deviance as pointed out by
Dentler and Erikson with an important variation in the leadership position.
Leadership is not highly conforming behavior but is itself built-in deviance,
even if it is legitimized.
The rank and file may take the customary for granted, but a break of
wont and use may enhance the reputation of the leader. The flexibility
required in leadership roles may entail greater or lesser departures from
otherwise expected behavior so that a certain amount of license to
deviate and to violate norms is built into the very definition of leadership.
(Coser 1962:180).
We are led to believe that the group accepts leadership deviance as
“good” if it does not become overly out of hand. Leadership may in fact be
trying to meet the needs of the group, which it cannot do effectively within the
strict interpretation of the group norms.
Although Dentler and Erikson’s article pertains to small group level
analysis, the assumptions appear to be easily adapted to other levels of
analysis. Now we can move back to a discussion of Erikson and Wayward
Puritan.
Again, as derived from Durkheim, Erikson recognizes that behavior is not
inherently deviant or normal, but instead it is defined that way by people in
charge of defining (1966:11). Why is it that a person who exhibits a wide range
of behavior in their life becomes labeled deviant when perhaps only certain
episodes in his/her activities are or would be considered deviant by the group?
Concentrating on behavior will no lead to any illuminating answers. The
process by which people are sifted, screened, and sorted into deviant roles
6
provides a better understanding of the functions of deviance sine the screening
devise is an important social control mechanism (196:11-12). Erikson gives
little insight into just what constitutes this screening device, although he does
acknowledge that social class, past records, and other similar concerns play an
important part. He is more concerned in just as he was in the small group
studies, with what functions deviance performs for keeping the group in tact.
The concentration of Erikson’s work is on how the group manages to
maintain its boundaries. Erikson tells us that boundary maintenance is a
system that (1966:10):
… controls the fluctuation of its constituent parts so that the whole
retains a limited range of activity, a given pattern of constancy and
stability, within the larger environment. A human community can be said
to maintain boundaries, then, in the sense that its members tend to
confine themselves to a particular radius of activity and to regard any
conduct which drifts outside that radius of activity as somehow
inappropriate or immoral. Thus the group retains a kind of cultural
integrity, a voluntary restriction on its own potential for expansion,
beyond that which is strictly required for accommodation to the
environment. Human behavior can vary over an enormous range, but
each community draws a symbolic set of parenthesis around a certain
segment of that range and limits its own activities within that narrower
zone. These parentheses, so to speak, are the community’s boundaries.
Interaction is the key to marking the boundaries and deviance plays an
essential role in this interaction process. Interaction between social control
agencies and persons labeled deviant “do the most effective job of locating and
publizing” boundaries (1966:10-11).
Erikson chose Massachusetts Bay Colony to test three functional
mentioned earlier, just slightly reworked. Ultimately, Erikson uses three crime
waves in Massachusetts’s history, the Antinomian controversy, the witch scare,
and the Quaker invasion to show how in some instances moral boundaries had
changed and the deviance worked to show that the behavior was now
7
acceptable. In other instances, with Anne Hutchinson for example, reaction to
the deviance was used to highlight the existing norms and to clarify to all that
the norms were still very strong.
In the end for Durkheim and Erikson, crime and deviance is a natural
social process we would not want to get rid of even if one could.
Coser, Lewis. 1956. The Functions of Social Conflict.
Dentler, Robert and Kai Erikson. 1959. "The Functions of Deviance in
Small Groups." Social Problems 7:98-107.
Durkheim, Emile.. 1893 [1984]. The Division of Labor in Society.
Translated by W. D. Halls. New York: Free Press.
Durkheim, Emile. 1895 [1950]. The Rules of Sociological Method.
Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Durkheim, Emile _. 1897 [1951]. Suicide. New York: Free Press.
Erikson, Kai. 1966. Wayward Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of
Deviance. New York. John Wiley and Sons.
8